Reproductive Freedom is on the Ballot: Cast an Informed Vote for Montana Governor

NEW YORK – In a victory for judicial transparency, today the New York Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed a previous New York County Supreme Court order in NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) that requires OCA to disclose all memos it sent to judges that contain guidance on how to interpret and apply the law. The ruling affirmed that the memos — which inform how courts adjudicate New Yorkers’ rights — cannot be considered privileged attorney-client communications or internal judicial deliberations. “Today’s ruling rightly affirms that the public deserves to understand how our judicial system operates, and what goes into judges’ decision-making,” said Daniel Lambright, supervising attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Every day, judges make decisions that can dramatically impact New Yorkers’ rights, especially within vulnerable communities. New York’s judicial system is strongest when it is transparent, accountable, and responsive to the public. After years of litigation, today’s First Department decision makes clear: it's time for OCA to finally do the right thing and turn over the memos.” “It’s been five years since OCA admitted that it sends memos to judges purporting to advise them on how to decide cases,” said Terry Ding, staff attorney with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “The Freedom of Information Law exists to give the public access to documents like this, so that the process of government decision-making is not shrouded in secrecy. The decision today confirms that OCA must release the memos.” Intended to be a non-partisan, administrative arm of New York’s court system, OCA oversees operations, staffing, and day-to-day support for judges. But in 2021, the New York Focus revealed that OCA had a practice of issuing secret guidance to state court judges, including for cases concerning critical civil rights — like whether defendants in criminal cases should be granted bail and whether to uphold due process protections for people accused of crimes. As shown by the leaked 2021 Crawford Memorandum, these directives seem to carry weight in how state court judges rule. The NYCLU and ACLU have been fighting for these records for five years. In September 2021, the NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information request expressing concern over OCA’s secretive practices, and requested copies of all memos of this nature. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued, arguing that the public is entitled to such guidance. The trial court then ordered OCA to produce its memos, but OCA appealed. In October 2025, the Court of Appeals ordered OCA to turn over any responsive documents to be reviewed. OCA identified 22 memos that it has continued to fight to keep secret. Today’s ruling affirms that OCA has no basis to continue withholding these memos. Today’s decision can be found here. All case materials can be found here.

The ACLU’s Center for Liberty and Women's Rights Project, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court supporting a mother challenging the termination of her parental rights even though the juvenile court expressly found that her continued relationship with her children would not harm them. Under Georgia’s termination statute, courts may terminate parental rights if they find that a child cannot safely return home at present, without any finding that, or even considering whether, a continued parent-child relationship would harm the child or that termination is necessary. In this case, the Department’s own caseworker testified that the mother’s weekly visits with her children went well and that the relationship benefited the children and would continue to. The children's advocate agreed, testifying that the children had a good relationship and were bonded to their mother. Because termination permanently and completely severs the legal parent-child relationship, our brief urges the Court to require an individualized finding that severance is necessary to protect the child and that less drastic alternatives would not suffice. Our brief argues that the Constitution does not permit the State to permanently end a parent-child relationship without first establishing that doing so is genuinely necessary.

MISSOULA, Mont. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana today announced the launch of a $2 million joint campaign with ACLU Voter Education Fund to educate and engage Montana voters ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. “Montanans are fed up with partisan infighting and extreme laws that try to take away our fundamental rights. That’s why the ACLU is committed to keeping politics out of our courts and investing to ensure the Montana Supreme Court can continue to play a critical role in defending our freedoms,” said Khadija Davis, ACLU of Montana political strategist. “Voters deserve to know where candidates stand on key issues that affect their rights. It’s more important than ever that they know what’s at stake when they cast their ballots this November.” The ACLU Voter Education Fund (VEF), a federal political action committee, is spending $2 million on a series of statewide advertisements on social and digital media platforms and direct-to-voter mailers during the final weeks of the state Supreme Court race and key state legislative races. Additionally, the ACLU VEF will fund radio advertisements in Indian Country. The advertisements will focus on educating voters about where candidates stand on key issues, including abortion rights, voting rights, and keeping politics out of the courts. This is the organizations’ largest electoral investment in Montana to date and will reach over 191,200 voters. The Montana Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the state constitution and state laws. As the state’s highest court, it has the final say on many questions involving civil rights and civil liberties, and the Montana Constitution can provide broader protections than the U.S. Constitution. In recent years, the court has issued decisions protecting abortion rights and striking down restrictions on Indigenous voting rights. Amid increasing attacks on civil rights and liberties, voters will choose justices who will decide cases involving fundamental rights in the state. The spending in the state Supreme Court race builds on the ACLU’s electoral work in Montana in 2024. That year, the ACLU of Montana and ACLU spent $1.3 million educating voters about issues at stake in the state Supreme Court election. The ACLU Foundation also contributed more than $500,000 to a ballot measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution. The ACLU of Montana, ACLU Voter Education Fund, and ACLU are nonpartisan and do not support or oppose candidates for elected office. The organizations do, however, educate the voters about the issues at stake in elections and candidates’ positions and records on civil rights and civil liberties.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has awarded its prestigious Pro Bono Attorney of the Year honor to solo practitioner Sara Norman, and the Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year honor to Ballard Spahr LLP. These honors recognize the tremendous pro bono support the ACLU receives from law firms and solo practitioners, and the years of partnership and tireless energy they have contributed to defending our civil rights and liberties. “Faced with attacks on civil rights and liberties from every direction, we count on the private bar to join forces with us on the most important fights to protect our rights and freedoms,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director. “As one of our nation’s leading experts on the rights of incarcerated people, Sara Norman has been an extraordinary, longtime partner to the ACLU in our work in complex litigation holding prisons accountable for the health, safety, and fundamental rights of our clients. Sara centers the humanity and dignity of all people in her work. We are thrilled to name her our Pro Bono Attorney of the Year.” “The ACLU is delighted to name Ballard Spahr our Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year. At a time when the rights of transgender Americans are being tested in legislatures and courtrooms across the country, Ballard Spahr has stepped up time and again, alongside the ACLU, to advocate for the civil rights of our clients. We are grateful to the firm for fighting with us to make our Constitution’s guarantees a lived reality for all of us.” Sara Norman, a solo practitioner based in San Francisco, has served as co-counsel to the ACLU’s National Prison Project and Capital Punishment Project for over a year in Taylor v. Trump, our challenge to President Trump’s executive order directing that individuals who received commutations of their death sentences from President Biden should be incarcerated in the worst possible conditions in the federal prison system. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of 21 people whose death sentences were commuted by President Biden and who were designated under the Trump order to be transferred to the ADX Florence “supermax” prison in Colorado, which is known as the Alcatraz of the Rockies. Norman is an integral member of the Taylor v. Trump litigation team. She has worked closely with our clients, especially those with medical and mental health conditions, to advocate for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Federal Bureau of Prisons from moving people from their current prison at Terre Haute, Indiana, to ADX Florence. Norman has volunteered hundreds of pro bono hours for this case, and contributed her extraordinary expertise based on 30 years as a leading advocate for incarcerated people. Ballard Spahr has partnered with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project on multiple transgender rights cases, contributing extraordinary litigation experience, a shared commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, and thousands of hours of attorneys’ time. Ballard Spahr is currently co-counsel with us on three major cases at the forefront of the defense of transgender Americans’ civil rights: Loe v. Kansas, our state-court challenge to a Kansas law that prohibits medical care for transgender adolescents; Doe v. Kansas, our state-court challenge to another Kansas law, which prohibits updating the gender markers on driver's licenses and also bars transgender people from using restrooms in government buildings; and Robinson v. Labrador, our federal-court litigation challenging the deprivation of essential health care to incarcerated individuals, under an Idaho state law that prohibits the use of state funds for gender-affirming care. Previously, in 2024, Ballard Spahr partnered with the ACLU in Tennessee Equality Project v. City of Murfreesboro, a successful First Amendment challenge to a city ordinance banning drag shows.